Last month, Paris Hilton found herself in a familiar position, standing in front of a crowd of goading paparazzi decked out in bejeweled sunglasses and a shiny silver mini dress. But the conversation they were having was certainly not familiar to those who may think they know the heiress: “President Trump is going to sign the executive order to help the immigrants,” a voice yells out to her amidst the incessant pop of camera flashes. “Do you think that’s going to help?”

Hilton, who’s been the subject of paparazzi lust for almost two decades, is quick with an outspoken opinion: “He better help them, because this is not right what they’re doing to these children and their families … No one should be separated from their family. I’m disgusted,” she replies, turning her head to the side, revealing the weighty gold Gucci logo emblazoned on the arms of her glasses. She doesn’t stop signing autographs, but then looks directly into the camera and tells the world (or perhaps it’s her former family friend, Donald Trump, for whom she voted and to whom she is primarily speaking): “People come to America for the American Dream.”

This is TMZ’s contribution to the national debate over Trump’s family separation policy, and it feels both like a throwback to the tabloid-fueled chintziness of aughts-era Hollywood and a moment that could only occur in 2018. It is a surreal exchange for a litany of reasons, not least because of our collective understanding of who the woman in the sunglasses talking about immigration is: Paris Hilton is an icon not just of the 2000s, but of a certain widely held image of what inherited wealth, undeserved fame, and American excess looks like. There was her reality show The Simple Life, which followed Hilton and then-BFF Nicole Richie as they abandoned their lives of leisure to go live and work alongside “regular” Americans. Then there was also the numerous film and TV appearances, the singing career, the product lines, and the constant coverage by tabloids and early blogs. Through all this she crafted a persona — and, according to our conversation with her, that’s exactly what it was — of a spoiled, air-headed, platinum blonde princess, complete with the fake baby voice and sugary pseudo-sexuality that implies.

“I just got stuck with that character because people don’t know me in real life or haven’t spoken to me,” Hilton tells Refinery29. “They assume it’s just the baby voice and you know, ‘what’s Walmart?’ and silly things. I would say that’s not really how I am, but I was just trying to be entertaining for television.”

At 37, she’s been in and out of the spotlight for nearly two decades, and seems to be emerging now with a concerted effort to shake the image of the prodigal rich girl. How much it’s actually worked is in the eye of the beholder. “I think now I’ve really proven myself,” she argues. “With the success of my fragrances, then all my other 19 product lines, and all the big deals I’m doing, and real estate. I’m finally being taken seriously as a businesswoman and empire.”

While her grandfather donated 97 percent of his fortune to charity when he died in 2007, Paris currently has an estimated net worth of around $300 million. Her perfume empire alone is worth an estimated $1.5 billion. That it’s taken this long for Hilton to feel that she’s earned it says as much about the magnitude of her ambitions as it does about our fascination with money and how those who have it behave. Hilton was arguably the first person to turn her mere privileged existence into a lucrative career, a model copied today by many, but most famously mastered by Kim Kardashian (Paris’ old right hand) and her sisters. This year alone, Hilton released her 24th fragrance, launched a skincare line, and premiered a show on Viceland — of all places — where she examines the lives of young people attempting to “make it” in Hollywood. She also still DJs for nightly fees that, in 2014, were reported to be as high as $1 million per night, and dropped a new single titled “I Need You” earlier this year, though unfortunately it failed to live up to the success of her 2006 cult hit “Stars Are Blind.”

Yes, I came from Hilton hotels, but I’ve parlayed it into such a huge business that even my grandfather said to me, ‘I used to be known as Barron Hilton. Now I’m known as Paris Hilton’s grandfather.’

For all of today’s conversations about the spectrum of privilege and where certain people get placed on it, America either loves, or loves to hate, rich people. (Bonus points if they’re beautiful women with recognizable last names.) In thinking about Hilton, it’s hard not to call to mind another very privileged, very ambitious young woman: Ivanka Trump. In addition to being friends since childhood, both have monetized their moneyed backgrounds and our hunger for a piece of their world to sell a watered-down, mass-produced version of luxury. Paris’s numerous fragrances, like Ivanka’s now-defunct clothing line, are much less valuable because of the products themselves as they are because of the names behind them.

Hilton herself seems to understand this, saying of her new scent: “I really, I really want it to represent me and have my fans have a piece of me.” Nevermind that it smells like one of 2018’s least popular scents (roses), and has aggressively ignored the minimalist, millennial-friendly packaging her celebrity peers have adopted — Hilton’s confidence in her product reflects a confidence that rich-bitch wealth will always be relevant.

Indeed, even as her own star power has waxed and waned, the enormity of her legacy has come into focus: She is there in the fashion influencers filling your feed with their spon con. She is there among the stars of various reality television franchises, as they fling insults and beverages about on national TV. She is there among the socialite-turned-DJs-turned-fashion-designers that populate the most rarefied corners of the world, like Harley Viera-Newton and Alexa Chung.

“Ever since I was a teenager, I wanted to be independent. I didn’t want to have to ask my family for anything,” Hilton explains of her attitude toward money and privilege. “Yes, I came from Hilton hotels, but I’ve parlayed it into such a huge business that even my grandfather said to me, ‘I used to be known as Barron Hilton. Now I’m known as Paris Hilton’s grandfather.’”

When asked about the recent controversy surrounding Forbes magazine’s designation of Kylie Jenner, whom Hilton has known since birth, as “self-made,” she was adamant that she agrees with that characterization — and feels it applies to herself as well. “I think of myself and anyone who does business as being self-made. Everything I’ve done, I’ve done on my own, and yes, I do come from a last name, but there also are many children I know that come from families who, you know, take the choice of not doing anything with their lives.”

“I think of myself and anyone who does business as being self-made.

“I work harder and travel more than any CEO I’m friends with,” she continued. “The same with Kylie. I think any woman who is going to get into business and be an entrepreneur and make a big name and brand for themselves, they are self-made.”

Indeed, Hilton and Jenner probably do work harder and travel more than any CEO. Because while a traditional CEO is responsible for a particular product, what Hilton and Jenner are selling is more ephemeral and all-encompassing. The CEO of L’Oreal or MAC doesn’t have to prove that their entire existence is consistent with and can be distilled into a $30 lip kit or a $20 perfume. Perhaps the fact that this is a real career path is a small part of the reason why the American Dream to which Hilton refers in the video increasingly feels like just that — a hallucination from another plane of consciousness. If the American Dream, a flawed premise in and of itself, is about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, what Hilton and Jenner have done is more like standing for a long period of time in Louboutins. It’s impressive, but you had to have the $1,000 down payment to get there.

Paris Hilton is not self-made, of course. But it’s not hard to imagine how people like Hilton, Jenner, and Kardashian — who recently echoed a sentiment similar in an interview with Refinery29 — are able to conceive of themselves as such. They are indeed a different breed from those born into immense privilege who make no attempt to move forward on the opportunities afforded to them. Hilton’s hustle is impressive, but it doesn’t make her self-made in the way that someone like Cardi B or Rihanna is. You can be hard-working and break barriers without being able to define yourself as self-made.

Hilton’s legacy is a complicated one predicated not just on a cultural obsession with rich girls, but on a sexist desire to tear apart and vilify them in a way that rarely occurs with men of similar means. Why are we so obsessed with the Kardashian sisters and not the Brant brothers?

When we spoke to Hilton over the phone, she sounded cool and self-assured. She has, in case you were weren’t aware, dropped the infamous little girl voice. Surprisingly though, like many who came of age in an era before smartphones and social media and celebrities with teams of people meticulously crafting every inch of their facades, she also holds a degree of nostalgia for that more freewheeling time. “I can’t imagine if I had social media back then,” she confesses, imagining how much more difficult her fame would have been to cultivate.

“I didn’t have all these tools. I didn’t have an agent, no publicist, no manager. I’m going out in public and just being myself and everyone used to say like, ‘Oh my God, famous for being famous’ and like it was almost a bad thing, but now I feel like it’s a whole new formula that has really inspired this whole new generation.”

Despite this, Hilton boasts 9.3 million followers on Instagram, and 17.2 million on Twitter. There are fan accounts out there dedicated not just to her, but to her pets. She’s not Kim Kardashian, who has 114 million Instagram followers, nor is she of the mold of Chrissy Teigen and Busy Phillips, two celebrities beloved for their highly relatable social media content. But people don’t follow Paris Hilton for the great content she’s going to post. They follow her because she’s Paris Hilton.

Critics have said that The Simple Life, the premise of which was dreamed up by Fox execs, functioned to mock the denizens of the small towns it featured, but one could just as easily argue that Hilton and Richie were the butt of the joke. It also flattened Hilton into the one-dimensional character that it appears the “real” her has spent the past decade struggling to emerge from. It is unavailable for streaming on any of the major sites, but exists in perpetuity on YouTube. What is supremely ironic about Hilton and her attempt to return to the spotlight is that the thing that initially beamed her into our living rooms was that she was such an effective agent in showcasing the great American class divide, a massive crater which has only widened in the decade following.

Indeed, Paris Hilton is truly not self-made. But more than her family’s wealth or her well-known last name, we made her.

While Twitter didn’t exist back then, tabloids and early blogs did, and as Hilton’s star rose, so too did the level of scrutiny placed on her. In 2004, just as Hilton was about to become a household name, her ex-boyfriend Rick Salomon released a pornographic video of her. Today, the video would be understood as revenge porn, but back then, it was somehow understood as attention-seeking on Hilton’s part. In The American Meme, a 2018 documentary she appeared in, she compared the ordeal to being raped and said she “literally wanted to die.” While illicit celebrity tapes still exist and get leaked, it’s thankfully no longer socially acceptable (in most places, at least) to slut-shame the women victimized by them. If anything, thanks to the ability of the internet to magnify a more diverse range of voices, people are quick to call out such injustices with hackers serving jail time.

“It’s incredible what is happening right now with this movement,” Hilton says of contemporary feminism. “I think women can take over the world. Even though there’s been so many awful things that have happened and scary things, it’s really just changed the whole climate, and what people know women are capable of.”

But there’s a big caveat: We know the capabilities of some women, the ones who have been provided with the advantages necessary to show us what they can do. Which is maybe why Hilton’s rebranding as a serious business woman feels complicated at best. What’s surprising, though, is that even now, her understanding of a concept like being self-made still seems so limited.

Nevertheless, critics would do well to remember that Hilton wouldn’t have become famous if we hadn’t wanted her to be. Indeed, Paris Hilton is truly not self-made. But more than her family’s wealth or her well-known last name, we made her.

And to hear her tell it, she’s grateful: “I feel so proud of my fanbase and how loyal they are. The relationship I have with my fans, they’re like my family. They call themselves the Little Hiltons, it’s such a loyal fanbase. They really can relate with me.”

Human beings are the only living creatures who can manage their own evolution. We can decide to progress and grow or to devolve and ultimately destroy ourselves. This isn’t a Darwinian proposition. Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on the struggle for survival where two factors dominate: being able to mate and to find enough food. Homo sapiens escaped those factors (for the most part) in recent times. Our evolution moved from primitive survival needs into the realm of consciousness.

This turns out to be the most fascinating aspect of being human, and not just in the abstract. Current planetary crises, from climate change to famine, epidemic disease, and overpopulation, starkly inform us that we are not managing our evolution well. A rogue state like North Korea holds up a mirror to our propensity for irrational violence and self-destruction. In short, managing our evolution means that we must learn a new way to manage consciousness. How did we get here and what can the individual do about it?

One entry point is to look at consciousness a new way. In some form, all living things have evolved, not just physically, but in terms of consciousness. We are surrounded by other species of consciousness, and this fact is all-important when considering our own future. Take the presence of sunlight striking the Earth. Primitive one-celled creatures early on developed the ability to move toward the light, which holds true for both plants and animals. Finding the light is a function of life, and with every function, evolution invents new forms. Certain one-celled animals developed hair-like cilia, for example, that move rhythmically like oars to propel them to the light. Sunflowers adapted to face the sun as it moves across the sky. In tropical forests vines developed the ability to wind their way up trees to grab their ration of sunlight.

Evolutionists are physically minded, so they would assert that these ingenious forms are what is most important in carrying out the function of reaching the light. But the impulse that lies behind form and function is just as important. In an amazing way, this impulse can be turned upside down, so that blind cavefish need no light, and therefore they can dispense with functioning eyesight. Similarly, at the depths of the ocean are myriad creatures, including some species of shark that never see any light. Seeking the darkness can be an evolutionary impulse.

What this tells me is that without considering the species of consciousness, we will never fully understand evolution. It’s ironic that human beings claim a patent on higher consciousness. We feel singular and unique in our ability to reason, invent, discover, ponder, and create. But this has created a blind spot. We didn’t see, until very recently, the infinite diversity of mind that is part of all living things.

Other species of consciousness exist in a world totally unlike ours. We cannot conceive of what it is like to use a bat’s sonar or the signaling of humpback whales across hundreds of miles. We cannot orient ourselves in the ocean using sensitive depth sensors the way fish do, or migrate thousands of miles with unerring certainty the way birds and monarch butterflies do. Yes, we can observe the form and function that marks other species of consciousness by examining genes, brain tissue, and all manner of behavior in so-called lower creatures. But if you stand back, every species of consciousness is on its own evolutionary track and has evolved holistically.

The eagle has an eyeball larger than a human’s, and this enables it to see small prey from hundreds of feet in the air. A specific from (oversized eye) is linked to a specific function (hunting for food). But an eagle also constitutes the entire history of birds, the development of feathers, the appetite for meat or vegetation as food, and dozens of other adaptations that constitute its unique eagle-ness. Hummingbirds made completely different adaptations, following their own species of consciousness.

Let’s say that we can accept for the moment that the mental and physical side of evolution are totally necessary and complementary. This isn’t Darwinism, nor does it pretend to be. But several important ideas flow from giving consciousness a place at the evolutionary table (I would give it pride of place, but that’s an argument for another day). The first idea that flows from accepting consciousness is actually a question: What is consciousness trying to accomplish? If we can answer that, we’d know what the future holds, for if you see the goal in advance, you can manage the pace and direction of evolution.

The evidence, as we gaze around the Earth’s biosphere, is that consciousness possesses certain basic traits. It is creative. It works intimately with form and function, meaning that it is involved in how creatures develop their physical structure and behavior. Consciousness is also self-correcting. It knows how to experiment and use feedback to move away from useless adaptations. From these basic traits, which can be found even in primitive one-celled organisms, a flood of other traits follow. In fact, being the only creatures (we assume) who can think about evolution, it’s fair to say that whatever makes us human is imbedded in the fabric of consciousness, not just creativity but intelligence, love, a desire to expand and grow, and self-reflection.

In a new book I am drafting now, called Meta-Human, I propose with complete conviction that the evolution of consciousness will determine the future of Homo sapiens. Everything this implies is crucial for each person, not just our species. Here the relevant points:

Finding a new story for ourselves and the planet. In this new story, cooperation, compassion, non-violence, and care for the environment will become totally necessary.
Relying on creativity over destructiveness.
Giving consciousness a primary place in education.
Developing a worldview that turns away from materialism and technology as the prime movers of society. Technology is a necessary part of the solution, but we must minimize its destructive side and direct a future technology for a more just, sustainable, healthy and peaceful world.
In place of externals as the measure of progress (e.g., more money, more advanced weapons, power of the strong over the weak), inner values become the true mark of evolution (e.g., self-awareness, inner fulfilment, spirituality).
Higher consciousness must be accepted as real and desirable.
Fundamental reality must be couched in terms of consciousness creating and evolving within itself. In human terms, this means accepting that we live in a human universe entirely created by constructs and stories we project on to pure consciousness. Only by seeing our creative role in shaping reality can we become better, more evolved creators.

Long ago Homo sapiens developed an infinite capacity for managing the future, even though we are still subject to natural forces.Every flood, hurricane, drought, or earthquake can be made survivable if we place an emphasis on that. Potentially every disease is survivable, too. Modifications of genes are theoretically feasible. What we face isn’t a fixed limitation; instead, it’s our own self-destructive, anti-evolutionary impulses that have taken us into violence, crime, wars, famines, political strife, and us-versus-them thinking.

Those are not innate, fixed aspects of human nature. The truth is that we have been managing our evolution for centuries while also carrying the burden of outworn traits like anger and fear that we can no longer afford to indulge in. Having been granted evolutionary freedom, it’s time to use this incredible gift responsibly. In the next post we’ll look at what this means for the individual who wants to seize the opportunities opened up by our own species of consciousness.

Deepak Chopra MD, FACP, founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing and Jiyo.com, is a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation, and is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and Clinical Professor at UCSD School of Medicine. Chopra is the author of more than 85 books translated into over 43 languages, including numerous New York Times bestsellers along with You Are the Universe (February 2017, Harmony) co-written with leading physicist, Menas Kafatos. Other recent books include Super Genes co-authored with Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D. and Quantum Healing (Revised and Updated): Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine. www.deepakchopra.com

Chris Reining retired early at age 37 as a self-made millionaire.
Reining believes there is a difference between “living rich” and “being rich.”Rich isn’t about earning a big paycheck, he says. It’s about having assets that generate an income and living below your means.

Representatives from the state of Michigan and the UK have signed a collaboration agreement to share each other’s expertise in automobiles to advance self-driving cars and their infrastructure.

The memorandum of understanding was signed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and UK Business Minister Richard Harrington.

Detroit, Michigan is the centre of the U.S. automobile industry with the ‘Big Three’ auto manufacturers General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler all having their headquarters in the city.

In recent years, the UK has become known for its premium and sports car marques including Aston Martin, Bentley, Caterham Cars, Daimler, Jaguar, Lagonda, Land Rover, Lister Cars, Lotus, McLaren, MG, Mini, Morgan, and Rolls-Royce. Volume car manufacturers with a major presence in the UK include Honda, Nissan, Toyota, and Vauxhall

Governor Snyder says London has the best model in the world for roadworks and the installation of V2X (Vehicle-to-Infrastructure) technology which in the future will be used for communicating road closures and traffic delays to provide alternative routes and ease congestion.

“Michigan leads the world in the development and integration of intelligent connected vehicles, and face-to-face meetings with government leaders and large employers help us strengthen these relationships to collaborate on future technologies,” Snyder said.

Agencies and businesses from Michigan and the UK will share their leading expertise in the research and development of future transport innovation — including technological, regulatory, and policy data. Multilateral and bilateral meetings, workshops, and conferences will be co-hosted.

What are your thoughts on the collaboration? Let us know in the comments.

At the turn of a new year it’s natural to be reflective about the state of the world, a gloomy process this year. The world is filled with bad actors, who are easy to condemn. But complaining about them does us very little good, while a great deal of good can be done by flipping the coin and asking what it takes to be good.

To have a grounded sense of self, it’s necessary to feel that you are a good person. People who consider themselves bad are generally defeated and abused, wracked with guilt and shame. So where does goodness come from? This turns out to be one of the toughest problems tackled by religion, philosophy, and now science. Finding a scientific way to make people act morally is a long-standing dream going back at least two centuries when Utilitarians tried to base morality on a calculus of pleasure and pain. The notion that making goodness a pleasant experience seemed fruitful, especially combined with painful punishments when someone disobeys the moral rules.

Reinforcing pleasure and punishing with pain works when training animals and perhaps small children. But as we all know from willful two-year-olds, it’s possible to take perverse pleasure in disobeying the rules. Perversity is the outcome of free will, and there’s the rub. Human nature is too complicated to predict anyone’s choice of behavior, much less quantify it with scientific calculations. If you think of yourself as a good person, there isn’t a single cause behind your moral self-approval but instead a cloud of causes, including the following:

Biology: We are set up to avoid pain, so a morality that minimizes aggression naturally evolved. The cerebral cortex reflects rationality, the lower brain a more atavistic set of impulses. The reflective side of our nature recognizes that unbridled aggression, sexual predation, and constant vigilance against external threats are untenable. This gives grounds for subduing primitive urges, but this has been a tenuous detente at best.

Psychology: Children develop as moral creatures in stages, based on bonding with their parents. In a pre-moral child, there is no inner guidance that modifies raw impulses. But by age eight or nine “being good” has been internalized as something the child wants, not simply an imposition by a parent. The next stages are all inner-directed, if they are to develop at all, resting on the foundation of empathy.

Social conditioning: Using one’s own powers of thinking and feeling to become moral is such a formidable task that we all depend on second-hand conditioning. Wanting to fit in, we learn the codes of behavior that promote conformity. Much of shared morality is therefore unexamined, if not outright robotic. Few societies reward the individual who doesn’t fit in.

Ego drives: Ego is at odds with fixed morality, being driven by personal and private desires that center on strengthening “I, me, and mine.” Society allows for conflict and competition as well as communion and cooperation. The ego can be gratified by both sides of this equation, yet it harbors its own agenda always, regardless of morality.

Ulterior motives: Higher authorities use moral persuasion, pressure, and violence to enforce rules that keep them in the driver’s seat. Moral absolutism is generally associated with rule-based religions, where a divine authority tells human worshipers how to live. This was considered a workable system, and still is by fundamentalists who take scripture literally.

Into this mix one must consider the traditions of moral philosophy, law, justice, and other “higher” codes of civilization, which are generally protected by educated elites. There is also the whole irrational field of tribalism, nationalism, and fanatical religion, which makes it “good” to hurt “them” and protect “us.”

As soon as you realize that every religion is mind-made, and that the God or gods you believe in are relative to the society you were born into, absolute morality falls apart. There has been a strong strain of believers in “natural” morality. They may see sermons in stones, meaning that Nature is their moral teacher (Darwinism and the struggle to survive did this school in). To update natural morality, there is sometimes an attempt to scientize the whole problem, as in Michael Shermer’s recent book, The Moral Arc, where he attempts to find an objective basis for morality.

In his moral manifesto, Shermer declares, “It is my hypothesis that in the same way that Galileo and Newton discovered physical laws and principles about the natural world that really are out there, so too have social scientists discovered moral laws and principles about human nature and society that really do exist.”

The foundation for Shermer’s belief is Darwinian, claiming that being good gave individuals the best chance to survive and thrive. There are a dozen ways to explode his hypothesis, beginning with the mismatch between ant colonies, where physical survival is the ultimate test, and human society. Being self-aware, we can watch moral codes being created, flouted, overwhelmed, modified, and destroyed. This is entirely mind-made, and one trick about free will is that what the mind makes it can change in any way.

People who search futilely for moral laws and principles feel insecure about the possibilities of human nature. Their fear isn’t groundless. Freud died in a pessimistic mood, concluding that civilized behavior was a thin veneer, constantly under threat from the dark unconscious and its ungovernable drive toward aggression and death. But mind-made morality isn’t a fraud or delusion or a power play by authority figures. There is a sound argument for “natural” morality that exists in the opposite direction from where Shermer is looking, going inward instead of outward.

Life gains meaning and purpose form the inside out. Love, compassion, altruism, heroism, self-sacrifice, gratitude, gracefulness, honesty, and generosity—all the values we associate with being good—arise naturally once we decide to seek them in ourselves. Holding a higher vision of what it means to be human is what it means to be human. Survival, in the Darwinian sense, is beside the point. Human beings will die for a good cause, and we help and heal the weak so that they can survive.

The cloud of causes that determine your own goodness is a confusing thing, and I sympathize with those who search for moral laws and principles, just as I fear what lengths the same people will go to in order to impose those laws and principles on others—historically, it hasn’t been a pretty sight. The bottom line is that we are a unique species in that our existence as humans is based on consciousness. Not only is morality mind-made, but so is everything about the reality we inhabit. Without the capacity to know, perceive, interpret, create models, make free choices, and self-reflect, we are nothing.

Even though it is painfully difficult to see beyond human perversity, violence, and self-destruction, they aren’t the ultimate foundation of human life. Consciousness is. To the extent that we can sort out what is good and true in ourselves, we live up to the moral impulses that we value. It’s also human to fall short and to devolve into cruelty and violence. But a fixed set of moral laws and principles carved into a new set of tablets from the mountaintop isn’t the answer.

Deepak Chopra MD, FACP, founder of The Chopra Foundation and co-founder of The Chopra Center for Wellbeing and Jiyo.com, is a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation, and is Board Certified in Internal Medicine, Endocrinology and Metabolism. He is a Fellow of the American College of Physicians, member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and Clinical Professor at UCSD School of Medicine. Chopra is the author of more than 85 books translated into over 43 languages, including numerous New York Times bestsellers along with You Are the Universe (February 2017, Harmony) co-written with leading physicist, Menas Kafatos. Other recent books include Super Genes co-authored with Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D. and Quantum Healing (Revised and Updated): Exploring the Frontiers of Mind/Body Medicine. www.deepakchopra.com

Recent reports have labeled Gen Z the “entrepreneurial generation” and highlighted their desire to forsake the corporate grind for their own startups. We found that while Gen Z like the idea of working for themselves, the majority are risk-averse, practical, and pragmatic. Their supposed entrepreneurialism is actually more of a survival mechanism than an idealist reach for status or riches.

Your Take-Away

Gen Z is equally as likely to become your competition as they are to become your employee. Be prepared to offer autonomy, flexibility, and fair financial compensation as part of your terms of employment if you want to have any hope of enticing these workers to your business.

Generation Z is More Realistic

Millennials, fairly or not, are forever branded as the entitled generation of the participation trophy.

But, Millennials didn’t choose this path for themselves. It was a by-product of their upbringing. Millennials grew up in a time of financial prosperity. As did their parents – the Baby Boomers.

Generation Z is coming to the workforce with a completely different perspective than their predecessors. Ryan Jenkins, an expert on the differences between Millennials and Generation Z, reveals:

Seventy-seven percent of Generation Z expect to work harder than previous generations. Millennials became optimistic thanks to their encouraging Baby Boomer parents and growing up in a time of prosperity and opportunity. Generation Z will be realistic thanks to their skeptical and straight-shooting Generation X parents and growing up in a recession. According to Pew Charitable Trusts, during the Great Recession, the median net worth of Generation Z’s parents fell by nearly 45 percent.

Your Take-Away

Give these young employees space and autonomy to shine. They are driven to work hard, so let them do that in their most productive way.

Marketers, Gen Z is pragmatic and careful with their money. Make the value you offer very clear if you expect to make a sale.

Generation Z Has a Shorter Attention Span

While Millennials grew up as modern technology took hold, Generation Z has been saturated in it from day one. Deep Patel explains:

Millennials are hard to keep engaged, but Gen Z’s attention is even more split. On average, millennials use three screens (and bounce between them intermittently). Gen Zers use five: smartphone, TV, laptop, desktop and tablet.

Knowing this, it will be essential to capture attention quickly and to be present on multiple platforms to ensure that you make it through these filters. Patel lays it out:

If you want them to click on your blog post, watch your video or like your Instagram photo, you need to help them understand what the content is about, why they should care and how it will help or entertain them.

And you need to do it in eight seconds or less. This is an art, and it’s not easy. It’s why today’s best content creators are in such demand.

Your Take-Away

Getting the right message on the right platform at the right time will be key. And keeping those messages consistent will also be important. Consistency starts with strong branding, including the company name and logo design, and continues with delivering on your brand’s promises.

Employers will need to present interesting challenges as well as opportunities to learn and evolve in their roles to keep Gen Z engaged in the workplace.

Generation Z Grew Up With Personal Brands

Millennials tend to splash every detail of their lives on their social media accounts. Generation Z takes more care in curating the content they share and the image they present on social media. Jeff Fromm describes this phenomenon:

Through social media, they meticulously curate their personal brand to reflect how they want to be perceived. Unlike the millennial generation, Pivotals [Generation Z] only share specific stories, to specific people, on specific channels.

Your Take-Away

Understanding and respecting this desire for privacy will be important when it comes to connecting with and managing Gen Z.

And, if marketers hope to reach this audience, they need to be just as savvy in curating targeted appropriate content for specific channels.

Generation Z has Higher Expectations

Millennials value authenticity in the brands with which they do business. This is true for Generation Z as well. But, Gen Z take it one step further. Like their older cohort, Gen Z is vigilant against ads and being “sold.” But, they also expect to be a part of something bigger.

This new generation is bringing high expectations and a sense of social responsibility with them. Generation Z has opinions and they want to make an impact. Patel explains:

Gen Z is open minded, and believe there’s plenty of room for everyone to thrive together. This is important for big brands to note. Now more than ever, consumers are eagerly looking to the big brands and companies of the world to facilitate these major changes…Your messaging needs to be intelligent, thoughtful and inclusive. It’s not about proving that you’re right and someone else is wrong. It’s about including everyone together.

Gen Z is already tired of the status quo. They want their role to make a difference for the better. And they’re not waiting – they already have a strong influence on purchases:

Your Take-Away

If you’re looking to snag these young visionaries as employees, be prepared to show them how your business is making the world a better, more inclusive place.

And, if you want to sell to them, be ready to create an authentic brand with values they can get behind. For example, if you sell physical products, consider sustainable strategies when creating products and packaging design for those products.

The Future is Here

Millennials have already conquered the workforce. And, shortly, Generation Z is poised to make an equally significant impact.

Your business needs to adapt. Or it will become obsolete.

This guest post was authored by Katie Lundin

Katie Lundin is on the customer support team at crowdspring, one of the world’s leading marketplaces for crowdsourced logo design, web design, graphic design, product design, and company naming services. She helps entrepreneurs, small businesses and agencies with branding, design, and naming, and regularly writes about entrepreneurship, small business and design on crowdspring’s award-winning small business blog.